On 17 February 2012 05:14, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:00:39PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 2/16/2012 8:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> >Well, in that case, we should replace 'in' with '∈'. >> >> I would, but that doesn't work because of keyboarding issues. > > I wasn't being serious. I was going to suggest to those who complain > about && being too similar to &, that we should adopt ∧ and ∨ instead. > Nice and readable, and unambiguous. And we could use ∀ instead of > 'foreach'; that would save so much typing! I mean, D is already > standardized on Unicode, why not take advantage of all those nice > symbols that Unicode provides? ;-) (As long as you don't mention APL, > everybody will be just fine.) >
This is starting to sound more and more like Feep's little compiler project Neat (formerly fcc). -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
